Print

Print


I recall now actually having read that article! And it is consistent with
how most well-established orthographies work — with English and (Central)
Tibetan being probable exceptions and French and Modern Greek being
possible (partial?) exceptions. Interestingly my romanization of Sohlob
follows this principle: when the singular indefinite clitic _-hAh_ — which
is historically derived from _hah_ 'one' but undergoes vowel harmony — is
attached to a word (which may be a noun or an adjective since the clitic
goes at the end of the NP) which underlyingly ends in a voiced stop I write
the corresponding "voiceless" stop, since the result is a voiceless
unaspirated stop, and quite possibly the opposition between _b, d, j, g_
and _p, t, č, k_ is quite possibly one of aspiration to the native speaker
sitting somewhere in the conlang center of my brain. Thus _zoǧd_
'elephant(s)' but _zoǧtah_ 'an elephant'. Nevertheless I write _zoǧd_ even
though it undergoes final devoicing — I tend to transcribe [zɒʁ̥d̥]
although my pronunciation is actually [zɒχtʰ], to say nothing of "the
native speaker". It is interesting that I romanize _ǧ_ in both forms
although phonetically it is [χ] in both cases. Both consonants are voiced
when a suffix beginning with a voiced sound is added, as in the adessive
_zoǧdat_ — pronounced [zɒʁdɑt] — which I cited earlier today (in error
since that example should actually have had _zoǧtahat_ to agree with its
gloss! :-), where the _a_ in _"-at"_  actually is the original final vowel
of the stem Cheshirizing.

AFMOOC (as for my own other conlang) Euia Twas roman orthography quite
possibly violates the principle, since the glide [ɐ̯] which arguably is the
syllable final allophone of /ɾ/ and the syllabic [ɐ] which arguably is
underlyingly /aɾ/ are written ‹a› and ‹áa› respectively.
Consociolinguistically I chalk it down to three factors: (1) that a
non-native (Welsh/English) speaker was instrumental in the creation of
roman ET, (2) that the brahmic ET orthography uses special allographs of
‹r› in the relevant positions, and (3) that speakers of the Wttaa dialect
*don't* have the lenition, which speakers of all dialects are aware of.
OTOH roman ET is probably "correct" when it has a separate grapheme ‹u› for
[ɥ], since although _u_ is arguably always derived from /j/ (_i_), /w/
(_w_) or /ɰ/ (_y_) it is far from always clear which of those three is
underlying when [ɥ] appears in a root, so speakers would probably be aware
of it. OT3H speakers are not aware that ‹eu› is pronounced [œɥ] rather than
[ɛɥ], and hence no /œ/ phoneme or grapheme is needed.

So, my discussion of Swedish vowel length in the other thread boils down
to: it's possibly prelexical since morphological structure is involved in
determining it, so speakers are aware of it, also because there are a
number of proper/place names, all loans, where it possibly is phonemic. I
still maintain that positing phonemic length for every surface long vowel
is not only unnecessary but SE&W. That I who used to be a native speaker of
German, which has phonemic vowel length feel so is interesting if not
significant.


Den tis 30 apr. 2019 12:11Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> skrev:

> I've got a half-written reply to the original PSI thread, but for now:
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:39:16 -0500, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >> For the //n// -> [θ] thing you might do what Irish orthography sometimes
> >> does and write both the underlying and the surface consonant: ‹nth› or
> >> ‹thn›, at least if those don't occur as clusters, or don't in the
> relevant
> >> context.
> >
> >That's an interesting thought, actually. It wouldn't work for the crazy
> >deep orthography (<nth> would be ambiguous between /θ/ and /nɨθ/, but
> >for an orthography that writes all the surface vowels, that could work
> >well - there are no surface clusters of any kind. It's kind of clunky in
> >terms of characters per segment, but that's not the end of the world.
> >Irish for sure couldn't care less about that measurement!
> >
> >There's a couple of derived-only segments that would have to be
> >exceptions (since they don't occur outside this morphophonemic context,
> >so there's no premade letter to add for them), but non-double-spellings
> ><jh> and <wh> wouldn't be used for anything else, so it's probably not a
> >big deal.
> >
> >OTOH if there were any native speakers, they might not care about the
> >difference between derived and underived /θ/. It'd be hard to predict if
> >they would or not.
>
> <https://www.academia.edu/38201991/Orthography_and_phonological_depth.pdf>
> is a paper which might allow you to make predictions about this sort of
> thing.  Snider, working in Lexical Phonology, claims that speakers want
> alternations represented in the spelling iff they occur in the output of
> the lexical phonology stratum, i.e. only postlexical process should be
> unwritten.  See in particular the "layman's guide" in the Conclusion (p.
> 19) for how to tell whether a process belongs or doesn't belong to this
> level, if you're new to lexical phonology (as am I).
>
> Alex
>